1Sweet66

Will we see a repeat of the '70's?
I'm talking about what happened to the automobile starting in the early 1970's with both the insurance companies basically penalizing high horsepower cars and then the oil/gas prices making it an economic burden for us to drive our big american autos. This all came from an article that I saw about Obama requiring new cars to achive some outragous MPG by 2025, something like 50+MPG's? The only way other than lots of computer input to get these numbers is to reduce engine size and thus horsepower ( and fun factor ).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for big displacement high horsepower cars. I just see either the government seeing an oppertunity to place a "tax" on horsepower or the insurance companies placing large premimums on cars like the Z06 or GT500's. I know that we already pay a higher rate on some of these high performance vehicles but I could easily see it escalating similiar to the '70's. I think the UK already taxes cars in London based on their engine displacement don't they? Thank god for the computer tech that allows us to get 30 MPG in or C5's & C6's.
Thoughts?

Procrastination Racing

This could easily get you bumped into PR&C.

In the '70s, the problem existed on several fronts. The muscle cars were hitting lots of legal problems with the street racing. The muscle cars were far from fuel efficient, so cars down to 6 or 8 mpg was not that hard to find. And insurance was hard on these cars, since they were often having claims.

Today, the street racing still exists, but it is not something considered a manufacturer's responsibility since so many are not new from the showroom, but the backyard and garage type racers. Insurance claims haven't driven insurance rates higher than anyone is willing to pay. In the '70s, it wasn't uncommon to pay more in insurance per month than the car payment. I haven't heard of anyone complaining about that today.

Even with incredible horsepower, most still get respectable gas mileage. So even a gas guzzle like a Viper or ZR-1 is really not so bad you need to park it because you can't afford gas.

So will it repeat? I don't think so, unless there is government interference with the current manufacture and sale of said vehicles. That almost happened in the late '80s/early '90s with the Danforth bill to ban superbikes. But then, motorcycles are an evil contraption and a scourge on American youth.

GCD1962

Fed gov't will dictate MPG requirements, but car firms will continue to build some limited high HP cars. I recently bought a CTS-V wagon and paid about $2,600 extra for gas guzzler tax.

avideo

For example, Stephen Chu, the head of the energy dept. doesn't even own a car. Do you honestly think a guy like that gives a rip about the automobile? And the EPA is gung-ho to raise mileage standards. As it currently is, vehicle emissions are 3-4X cleaner than they were just 12-13 years ago. Time for a house cleaning in DC.

Nitrodamus

The car is in his wife's name... a BMW 325

OldKarz

427435

The problem is that many of us have been spoiled by the low price of gas in the 1990's. If one looks at wages in the 60's and the mpg of the cars of the 60's, gas would have to be over $5 a gallon for a person to be spending the same % of his income on gas driving the same type of car.

My 67 got 14 mpg on a very good day. And I never thought twice about paying 0.349 for a gallon of gas.

My 03 is quicker and faster and gets twice the mpg. Same with most other types or sizes of cars. And of course, wages have gone up a lot. Starting wage for a beginning engineer in 1966 was about $7500------today it is around $60,000. You do the math.

Lou64

If you have ever driven in DC, you would realize having a car there is like punishment. Take the Metro and save yourself an hour or two on the road every day.

So gas has gone up 1000-1100% since the 60's, wages have gone up 700%, and gas mileage has gone up 100%. According to my math, gas is the one that has gone up most.

To the OP: Why blame Obama for something that would most likely have to pass as a bill in Congress? Blame them, for what is the opposite of PROgress? That's right, CONgress.

And even if they do repeat, we have had a great run of high HP cars lately, so just buy yourself a C6 or a Shelby Mustang or CTS-V or whatever floats your boat and tell Obama to kiss your white patutie.

champs65

From the perspective of automobiles in the 70s' evolving into objects of sheer ugliness, and making that comparison to todays' cars, it's already begun.

Seems like all the manufacturers are pushing stuff that looks like this:





And the ironic thing is, they are lauded for achieving 35 MPG! I used to get that with my 89 Buick Regal.

sub006

If you are over 30 and don't get a lot of tickets or accidents, you should be able to get a good insurance quote no matter how much horsepower your car has. If it's a Lamborghini or Bugatti, expect to pay more becaue of repair and replacement value, not necessarily performance potential. Corvettes and most Porsches aren't that costly with many sedans and trucks going for $50,000 and way up.

sub006

Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, I think the new Camaro is uglier than the Chevy and about even with the Nissan, just awful. And some of the teeny cars are plenty fast, as low as 6 seconds 0-60, more than you need on the street.

champs65

It certainly is.

I try, but I just can't see anything in these kind of cars...nothing proportionate or flowing, no lines, nothing..... (and BTW the Camaro still doesn't, and it's had enough time to grow on me by now)

sub006

The Camaro is supposed to be the best-handling of the "new" ponycars with its IRS, but if I was in the market it would be first choice Challenger, runner-up Mustang. Sorry, Chevy, this bow-tie guy can't handle the Camaro exterior OR the weird dash.

Nitrodamus

Supposedly the C7 has Camaro tail lights... great.

sub006

The new Camaro tail lights are NOT round ('Vette) or rectangular (Camaro), they're trapezoids. They remind me of a '73 Javelin, which didn't look nearly as good from any angle as a '68.

Nitrodamus

Interesting!

Frankie the Fink

Meaningless. I worked in DC 6 years and I may as well have parked all my cars or sold them (and I DID sell my '66 Mustang classic after living there a year). Unless you take a masochistic joy in fighting hours of traffic snarls....the metro and/or buses are the way to go. Even considering as a DoJ director that I got reserved downtown parking - it still was NOT worth driving.

Having said that...all the new cars to me are just computers with wheels on all four corners and look like bloated microwave ovens for the most part. I laugh at the TV ads for cars now because of you swapped the body badges I wouldn't know one from another.

63Corvette

BUT I had a JOB in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and until I retired in 2009, so I could AFFORD it. However, today's "beginning engineer" is OUT OF WORK and can't afford it......besides not even wanting to own an automobile at all....it's a different world out there.

62Jeff

I applaud VW for "borrowing" design from Mercedes to produce my 2012 CC R-line. It's comfortable, has plenty of power for a commuter car, gets 30 mpg all day long in traffic, and I'm not ashamed to drive it

JohnZ

By 2016, when the CAFE requirement is 35 mpg ("combined", which NOBODY advertises, not "highway" you see every day in ads), cars of that size will be considered "family cars". By 2025, when the CAFE requirement is 54.5 mpg, they'll be considered "limousines".